Florida has averaged 85% attendance or higher in every single year since they've been in the league, and has only fallen below 90% twice. Now consider that the team missed the playoffs for 12 straight years.

I'll also point out that any measure that you use ("money-losing", "poor attendance") also condemns every Canadian city in the last 20 years with the exception of Toronto and Montreal. Would the NHL look better if teams losing money and having poor attendance were all shipped south en masse, leaving only 2 Canadian cities?

EDIT- Did you SERIOUSLY say Saskatoon?

Announced attendance is not the actual amount of butts in seats it's tickets distributed whether they were paid for or not or discounted or not. Hard to take those numbers even remotely serious when they announce stuff like that and you can clearly see 2/3's of the arena is empty.

They're only going to be the perpetual flavour-of-the-month in their markets when they do good, but as soon as they hit a rough patch, most of the "fans" won't hesitate to abandon ship and stop supporting their teams altogether until they start winning again.

How did Washington, Boston, and Pitts do when they were losing 5-10 years ago?

It's beyond me why any "fan" would give a rat's ass about how many millions their favorite team makes. It's not like one group of millionaires deserves their money any more than any other group of millionaires (that is, they should all be penniless).

Now, wait a minute...11 teams in the last 25 years have both sold out an entire season AND been less than 75% at least once. Are they bad markets or not?

Of course, you'll go back to when the Canadian dollar was worthless. Stop with these 100% irrelevant statistics. The last 7 years, and only the last 7 years (As the Canadian dollar will NEVER reach that low again) are what matters.

Teams that have sold out every single home game for the past 7 years:

Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver

Teams that have sold out every single home game since relocation from a failing market:

Winnipeg

Just keep ignoring the facts, bud. Yes, I DID seriously say Saskatoon. I guarantee you that a franchise in Saskatoon would sell out every single game for a very long time. They could easily accomplish what Winnipeg STH's accomplished. A building the size of (or slightly bigger than) Winnipeg's would be very viable in Saskatoon. Disagree? Just look at what the Roughriders accomplish in Regina. Fans travel from all over the province to see every Riders game; 60,000+ fans, in fact. Also note that Saskatchewan is about to hit a MAJOR oil boom. Saskatoon has already had a major population increase, and is expected to continue to do that for quite a while.

Rich teams are there to fund and help unprofitable teams to "grow the game".

That's how you grow the game, give it 100 years, it will get better. They've only been in those markets for under 50 years, so give it another 50 years. Next thing you'll know Hawaiians will be skating instead of surfing.

Poorer teams are there to help keep salaries lower for all teams.

Besides, if the rich teams want to be annoyed with the non-profit teams, then they're annoyed with half the League. And half the League doesn't make a profit because the top 3-6 teams have pushed salaries too high for the great majority of the teams in the League.

Florida has averaged 85% attendance or higher in every single year since they've been in the league, and has only fallen below 90% twice. Now consider that the team missed the playoffs for 12 straight years.

I'll also point out that any measure that you use ("money-losing", "poor attendance") also condemns every Canadian city in the last 20 years with the exception of Toronto and Montreal. Would the NHL look better if teams losing money and having poor attendance were all shipped south en masse, leaving only 2 Canadian cities?

EDIT- Did you SERIOUSLY say Saskatoon?

And how many ticket sales are from Canadian snowbirds, how many were given away, and how many are just dirt cheap.

It's the price of tickets that are more important, not how many butts are in the seat.

Of course, you'll go back to when the Canadian dollar was worthless. Stop with these 100% irrelevant statistics. The last 7 years, and only the last 7 years (As the Canadian dollar will NEVER reach that low again) are what matters

I can come up with arbitrary time frames to demonstrate whatever the hell I want as well. Let's take 1995-2000, shall we? That's when Colorado, Dallas, Florida, and Phoenix were all selling out games left and right. The Islanders and Chicago were not.

Now we've removed the exchange rate from the equation entirely. Are the former four all hockey markets, and the latter two not?

I can come up with arbitrary time frames to demonstrate whatever the hell I want as well. Let's take 1995-2000, shall we? That's when Colorado, Dallas, Florida, and Phoenix were all selling out games left and right. The Islanders and Chicago were not.

Now we've removed the exchange rate from the equation entirely. Are the former four all hockey markets, and the latter two not?

Florida and Phoenix have NEVER sold out games left and right. Phoenix has never drawn a penny of profit in their existence. Colorado and Dallas are solid hockey markets, and therefore not part of this conversation.

First you use irrelevant and outdated statistics, now you're just making things up. How do you expect anybody to take you seriously?

Well as a fan I don't get annoyed with money making or money losing teams per se, I just want to watch hockey.

On the subject though, Bettman went to all of the south markets to get more national interest and land that big US tv deal which is what fuels profitability for sports. That deal never happened as there isn't enough US national interest in the sport to date and tv deals are restricted to large regional markets like New York and Philly. So for the most part the NHL is a gate driven league. That puts a premium gate revenue. In this thread attendance figures are being thrown around like they are all created equal. They aren't. Go to a game in Phoenix, go to a game in Toronto and see if the price is comparable. The big popular markets command much more money based on supply demand and thus the gap in revenue is exponentially wider than counting all attendance as the same.

Do you have actual #'s to show WPG and EDM had low ticket prices just out of curiosity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Airlines

Of course he doesn't, because actual numbers to back him up don't exist. What he said is absolutely false.

They must have been obscenely expensive, to justify how Winnipeg never hit 90% in a given year (ever) despite being in the playoffs and having some seriously exciting players.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerRoeper

And how many ticket sales are from Canadian snowbirds, how many were given away, and how many are just dirt cheap.

It's the price of tickets that are more important, not how many butts are in the seat.

If you have that information, I'd love to see it. Since I don't, and I know you don't, we have to work with what we have.

There also aren't enough games against "traditional" teams to pad Florida's numbers with. I can't imagine people coming down from Canada in October feeling ecstatic over seeing a three-game homestand against Carolina, Atlanta, and Tampa.

Florida and Phoenix have NEVER sold out games left and right. Phoenix has never drawn a penny of profit in their existence. Colorado and Dallas are solid hockey markets, and therefore not part of this conversation.

First you use irrelevant and outdated statistics, now you're just making things up. How do you expect anybody to take you seriously?

Unpopular opinion I think, but I think it's probably the rich franchises holding things up. The failing franchises just want to make money, be it by cutting costs or by better revenue sharing. Better revenue sharing is in everyone's best interest except the richest teams, whereas cost cutting benefits all club owners and hurts the players. Seeing as the poor teams probably don't care where the extra $$$ come from, it's easier to side with their peers (owners) than players, and fight that battle on a united front.

I've thought from the beginning this is a battle of rich team vs. poor team, and the players are sort of caught in the middle. The nature of the CBA is league vs. labor, so it's always presented as a players vs. owners issue, when I don't think that's necessarily true. I hesitate to call the players 'victims' here, but they didn't go looking for a fight.

That said, the players should realize that there are struggling clubs and that while that's not really their fault (the players) it is in their best interest long term to see all clubs doing well, and that taking a percentage cut now can benefit them long term if overall growth continues. whether true or not, when a club like the Blackhawks say they're still losing money, everyone should take notice as they're in the midst of a record consecutive sellout streak. We can argue until the end of time about which clubs are legitimately losing money and which are flat out liars, but there are franchises out there that ARE losing money.... when was the last times players lost money? I'm pretty sure the answer is never... owners assume all the risk and while its not the players responsibility to assume that risk, they should realize that when a franchise fails the cost to them is that 1/30th of players will lose their jobs... and that is the risk the players assume by not coming down from 57%

The reality is that both sides need to compromise.... rich teams need to share revenue better, but players also need to come down from 57% so that rich teams aren't crippled by a system that shares revenue effectively... it's the rich teams that are responsible for so much revenue generation, so to penalize them is to shoot yourself in the foot, no matter which side you're on.

They must have been obscenely expensive, to justify how Winnipeg never hit 90% in a given year (ever) despite being in the playoffs and having some seriously exciting players.

If you have that information, I'd love to see it. Since I don't, and I know you don't, we have to work with what we have.

There also aren't enough games against "traditional" teams to pad Florida's numbers with. I can't imagine people coming down from Canada in October feeling ecstatic over seeing a three-game homestand against Carolina, Atlanta, and Tampa.

No one does. But we do know tickets are very, very cheap to see Panthers games.

I can come up with arbitrary time frames to demonstrate whatever the hell I want as well. Let's take 1995-2000, shall we? That's when Colorado, Dallas, Florida, and Phoenix were all selling out games left and right. The Islanders and Chicago were not.

Now we've removed the exchange rate from the equation entirely. Are the former four all hockey markets, and the latter two not?

Want to adjust those numbers for tickets that were actually paid for? Going and paying to go are entirely different things. See Phoenix's dollar bash promotion with $1 dogs and $1 beers along with giveaway tickets. Those old figures you've pulled up for Edmonton and most others are meaningless relics of a different time. Entirely different set of circumstances that will never again exist, including corrupt owner, end of a 5 cup dynasty, low dollar, and huge public sector cuts by the government.

Might as well discuss the attendance numbers of the 1915 Toronto Maple Leafs while your at it. What? Bad numbers? Almost like all the men were away visiting Europe...

I bet, if you polled the owners today, the majority of them would be in favor of the relocation of at least Phoenix, Nashville, Florida and Columbus to better markets

I suspect you're right. It raises the question, why haven't more teams been moved? Is it because the the US national footprint would shrink if you move teams to areas with existing interest in the game (e.g., Markham, QC)? Is it because there haven't been viable owners/arenas for those potential cities? It's most likely a combination of both, plus a host of other reasons. That being said, the players are all for relocation and its a key premise in their argument for more significant revenue sharing:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald Fehr

From the players’ standpoint, we want a healthy league with as many teams as we can have and that raises two questions: If a team in city A could be doing much better in city B, and the fact that it’s still in city A is causing us labour problems, why don’t we move it? Atlanta moving to Winnipeg and getting rid of those problems is an example of that. The second question in bargaining is: If a team is kept in a city in which it is not doing very well, and there is another place it could be relocated and do better and make labour relations and everything else easier, and the decision is to leave it in the first city, whose responsibility is that and who ought to bear the cost for it? Those questions from our standpoint have self-evident answers.